Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayfarer2s | Hacker News Reader

Honestly I'm glad they're moving towards wireless. I replace way more headphones than I care to admit just from them wearing out with normal use. It's usually just the wire itself that is worn out, the earpieces are almost always in good condition. The only thing I worry about is losing the AirPods, but they seem like a step in the right direction.

View on HN

I've had the same Sennheiser HD25 for 12 years and use them almost every day. I've replaced the ear pads twice, but I've never had to replace the cable (which is easily replaced).

It's a bad move from Apple to remove the jack. I dislike wireless headphones as you can't quickly move them from iphone to macbook, they need charging and they'll always have some form of lag.

>I dislike wireless headphones as you can't quickly move them from iphone to macbook, they need charging and they'll always have some form of lag. According to apple there will be a continuity style handoff mechanism with the airpods(and it sounds like the new bluetooth beats headphones). Assuming it works well, it will actually be easier to move from iPhone, to Macbook, to iPad, to apple watch. Just start using/playing music on the other device and it'll switch over. Who knows how good the implementation will be, especially at first, but it's clearly a problem they're aware of and trying to address.

My problem with this is vendor lock-in. What if I want to seamlessly move from an iPad to an Android phone to a Windows PC?

But that's my problem, not Apple's.

I use earbuds for hours a day, and replace them at least once a year at a cost of $10 or less. So earPods cost about a decade's worth of wired earbuds.

Besides, wireless earbuds that only last for 5 hours would be completely useless to me, since I often listen to music all day while hiking. I can't imagine I'm the only one who dislikes having ever more things that need to be frequently charged: wireless mice, "smart" watches, now earbuds. I'm pretty happy with my digital watch that lasts several years on a battery, and my cheap headphones that don't need to charge, and won't get lost when they fall out of my ears. Sorry, but not everything can or should be wireless.

But wireless is an option already. That's not a reason to eliminate the 3.5 jack at all cost.

Plus, some people don't want Bluetooth on. Like me.

So use the adapter?

I suspect the adapter will be annoying and easily losable.

I suspect the adapter will cost ten bucks a throw. Buy a spare. (Or don't. But it's an odd place to get frugal when we're talking about a $700 phone.)

Well, here I was typing up a sarcastic reply about how Apple is congenitally incapable of selling anything with a price tag under $20, but they already have the thing on their store, and it's $9:

http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-...

That certainly does help alleviate the pain.

Ah, the Apple way. That problem we just created for you? Here's a dongle to solve it. That'll be an extra $10 (if you're lucky). You're welcome.

You forgot "Apple doesn't innovate".

But, seriously, it comes with the territory. Some people are okay with it. Some people are not. Both are fine. I don't really understand why it gets so far up people's noses either way.

At the core, it might be the same thing as with the outrage over Twitter changing the star icon ("favorite") to a heart icon ("like"). These changes remind people that they're not really in control of the product they're using, they're bound by the decisions of an enterprise who's only acting in their interest if these happen to align with the enterprise's own interests.

Yes it is. Port complexity is real, especially with analog ports, and relative to what you can do with physical space in a phone package the space required for any port is significant.

While I decry the drive towards "1mm slimmer!" do consider that the 3mm jack is probably around 10% battery capacity in space usage on most devices. You might not be able to perfectly reclaim the space, but still, I would always prefer to just use a wireless headset with 5%+ more battery.

The space argument would have been a lot more compelling if they hadn't added stereo speakers. I feel like I might have grudgingly accepted it, but with that addition it just feels like they're screwing with me.

FWIW, it looks like they didn't add a speaker, they just made the ear-speaker work with the bottom-of-case speaker in stereo mode.

Oh really? I thought it looked like the sound was coming from the side in their animation. But maybe I saw it wrong or that was misleading.

so you would rather 5%+ more battery but have a separate device to charge at more frequent times?

How about +X% battery for a phone with a flat back?

The AirPods do look incredibly easy to lose.

Perhaps Apple could sell some kind of wire to attach to the AirPods to keep them safe. The other end of the safety wire could plug into the phone's lightning port, for extra safety.

Unfortunately now we're going to wear out the battery. I don't know which is better.

It's so easy to replace cables for headphones though? Even if the cables aren't detachable (and they are in many good headsets), it's a trivial soldering job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com